> I now see you're quoting from the EULA. I am referring to the> subscription agreement, *that* agreement is violated by a> *customer* that has more systems running than he is paying for.

Interesting. I read this (from the subscription agreement that you cite):

> The term "Services" as used in this Agreement means, collectively, the > Support Services provided under the purchased subscription and defined > herein, RHN Services as defined herein, and any Learning Services > purchased under this Agreement and defined herein. [ from I. A., > Subscription Agreement ]

> "Support Services" means the support services provided with the > purchased subscription as further defined in this Agreement. [ From > II. A. 1., Subscription Agreement ]

> The Support Services purchased by Customer are intended for use only > for the benefit of the Customer and only for the Installed Systems > with subscriptions. Customer may not use one subscription for Services > for more than one Installed System. [ From II. A. 2.2., Subscription > Agreement ]

... as saying that a licensee can only use RedHat's *services* for licensed systems -- but the definition of their services don't include the software itself. That is, I would expect a licensee would only be allowed to directly query RHN from a licensed system, and would only be entitled to support services for a licensed system. I would expect, though, that once packages have been downloaded from RHN, the license on those *packages* would be GPL.

I don't see how they could claim that the method in which you download the package could change the license on the package itself. Of course, I'm not a lawyer.